First We Turn Away from Democracy, Then We Turn On Ourselves

The reportage and images from Wolverhampton City Council over the recent past have caused sadness, disbelief and in many cases anger. As is often the case when we're being asked to accept the unacceptable, there's a temptation to go straight to "blame" without touching "understand."
Some of the comments made under the general heading of "angry/blame" have made hard reading. Hard because correspondents and contributors have too often done one or a combination of:

• Blaming councillors because they have "huge expenses"
• Too many Chiefs and not ......
• Mad-cap schemes/Pet projects
• Money spent on useless things like needy groups/translation services
• Money spent on useful things like museums and libraries
• Failure to "grasp the nettle"

Some observations have been truly scalding, criticising the very existence of services who reach out to the weaker and marginalised members of our society. Others have mocked the notion that a museum should be funded from within the Council budget, stating that those who want to use it should pay for it.

 There's something missing: the principle of municipality, the concept of describing the kind of City that's wanted and to capture its meaningfulness to those who live and work there and would want their families to do the same.
The polarised and unhelpful clichés, that only the Tories can manage the budget and it is only Labour that will protect services are demonstrably untrue and distort a more pressing truth: local government, democracy and engagement are apparently held in contempt by Westminster as it relegates the provision of services that build an inclusive society to the level of the parish pump.
Social cohesion is always tested during difficult times and the positive contributory elements of belonging to and caring about your area, town, city have synergy and are powerful. They are well worth nurturing. The wrong questions are perhaps deliberately and confusingly, being asked of us: all too often there appears to be a pre-prescribed answer. Yet the question, "What do you want your City to look like and be like and what would you like it citizens to be able to achieve?" is never asked in a meaningful way. For me it is one that prompts a dialogue of potentially irresistible power and potential.
It's Easter now: a powerfully symbolic time of the year: I wonder what renewal is possible and what we would seek to resurrect from the bold days of high order municipal commitment and thinking? I wonder what will be left, impoverished and weakened to a point of incapacity?